Here at the Schmooze, the Forward’s pop-culture desk, our love affair with Mayim Bialik is an open secret. A child-star neuroscientist with a name out of a Shalom Aleichem story whose lifestyle brand combines the best in feminism and Judaism? Surely this woman was sent by the Divine to be our blog-y bashert.

It was tempting to wait out the media storm surrounding Bialik’s recent op-ed on sexual harassment in the New York Times and return to our regularly scheduled Mayim coverage next time she gifts us with a video of her chanting blessings over vegan challah or sternly explaining the gender pay gap. But as we hope to continue to look to her as one sterling example of how to lead a Jewish life, we would be remiss if we didn’t say that, as some of Mayim’s biggest fans, we found some of the points in her article hurtful and dangerous.

Mayim, so much of your article was true and beautiful. Your description of the way you were taught to hate your face and body as a little girl moved us to tears. It is clear that you endured so much pain as a result of an evil system that was designed to use you for male profit. So it is painful that the lesson you draw from that experience is not that that system should be dismantled, but rather that other casualties of the system deserve their punishments. Insane beauty ordinances designed by men robbed you of precious moments of your childhood that you say you “never recovered from.” The same forces robbed young actresses and models speaking out now. You should be fighting on the same side. Instead, your article slapped those women down and spread lies about them. You should apologize.

You say that many women misunderstood your message, but you are a strong writer and your message was clear — you drew a direct causation between augmenting one’s physical appearance and being sexually assaulted. Numerous times in your article you suggest that, while women should have the right to present any way they want, they are well aware that doing so is unsafe and should expect to be assaulted if they try to attain conventional beauty.

It is ostentatiously cruel of you to suggest that you haven’t been sexually assaulted because you aren’t a “perfect ten” or because you make choices that are “self-protecting and wise.” You haven’t been sexually assaulted because you are lucky.

You suggest that the women who reported having been raped and assaulted by Harvey Weinstein were “naive about the world we live in.” It is naive of you to assume that you haven’t been assaulted because of your appearance. Conventionally unattractive women are assaulted every day. This feels like something you could have discovered in a Google search or a single conversation with another woman.

The final sentences of your article were unbearably painful. They made me mourn the divide in feminism that sorts women into more or less deserving of safety and freedom. Surely this systematic dysfunction, like the system that allowed Harvey Weinstein to assault women for years with impunity, and the system that made you consider radical plastic surgery as a child, was built by men. Your very clear and direct suggestion that the women who were waylaid on the way to their dreams by powerful men chose to offer themselves up sexually in an attempt to be called “worthy of attention, respect and love” is a vile falsehood.

It seems like the way you have been treated by Hollywood is causing you to resent other women to the point that you begrudge them their safety.

We were saddened by your reflections on women’s responses to your article. You say that despite many taking your “words out of the context”, your message resonated with many women who understood your intention. Your message could only have been received positively by women who, like you, have avoided sexual assault by sheer luck and cling to the idea that they are holders of a secret method to female safety that they will hand down to their daughters one day, ensuring them safe passage through the world of men. But the surest method to female safety is all people joining together and rejecting rape culture with one voice. Currently, your words are working to drown out that voice.

We loved your video last month about preparing for the holiest days of the Jewish year, and we took to heart your wish for a year of “more tolerance and bravery.” It was so brave of you to publish an account of your survival in a system designed to use women. Now we ask for greater tolerance. You said today that you are “excited and motivated to be part of a larger conversation,” and added, “If this was not the way to do it in these 900 words, I do apologize for that.”

Around the high holidays, my childhood woman rabbi always liked to say, “Are you sorry because you hurt someone, or are you sorry because you got in trouble?” Elul is over. But it’s not too late to say sorry.

Jenny Singer is a writer for the Forward. You can reach her at Singer@forward.com or on Twitter @jeanvaljenny

Last season of “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend” ended with Rebecca Bunch vowing to ruin the life of Josh Chan, the man who abandoned her at the altar. Once a lovesick maniac, Bunch is now a heartbroken maniac, and Chan will inevitably pay the price. The third season premiered Friday evening to solid reviews — and all evidence thus far suggests that we can expect some raucous, brilliant musical numbers to accompany Bunch’s evil plan to destroy her ex.

The first one released, “Let’s Make Generalizations about Men,” is classic Rebecca — campy, over-the-top, and painfully relatable. Watch below:

Mayim Bialik is the latest celebrity to insert herself into the debate about sexual harassment and assault in Hollywood — and she’s also the latest celebrity to find herself at the center of a fiery backlash over her words.

Bialik took part in a Facebook live video Monday morning to explain what many saw as a “victim blaming” op-ed she published in the New York Times on Friday. The article described what it was like for Bialik to grow up as a Hollywood actress who was not “a perfect 10” — but it was her comments about dressing modestly that drew criticism.

“I still make choices every day as a 41-year-old actress that I think of as self-protecting and wise,” wrote Bialik. “I have decided that my sexual self is best reserved for private situations with those I am most intimate with. I dress modestly. I don’t act flirtatiously with men as a policy.”

“In a perfect world, women should be free to act however they want. But our world isn’t perfect. Nothing — absolutely nothing — excuses men for assaulting or abusing women. But we can’t be naïve about the culture we live in.”

In the interview, Bialik attempted to clarify her remarks.

“There is a broad experience of being human and being female,” said Bialik. “I’m trying to come from a place of compassion.”

Bialik repeatedly referred to herself as “a traditional feminist” and said that it could be difficult for people to understand how she could be at once “a bleeding heart liberal and a social conservative.”

“I’m a very strong woman and I also like to iron handkerchiefs,” said Bialik.

Bialik directly addressed those who accused her of blaming sexual assault on the apparel of the victim.

“How you dress has nothing to do with assault and power,” said Bialik.

Reactions to the interview were mixed, with some Facebook users demanding an apology for Bialik’s original article — which she did not give.

Becky Scott is the editor of The Schmooze. Follow her on Twitter, @arr_scott

The episode of Hulu’s “Difficult People” in which Julie Klausner betrays her own moral compass by accepting a role in a Woody Allen film came true on Twitter this past weekend. Actor Griffin Newman tweeted that he would be donating the money he earned by acting in an as yet untitled Woody Allen movie to charity because he “believes he is guilty.”

Newman is referring to the 2014 New York Times open letter Dylan Farrow published accusing Allen of molesting her as a child. Allen has fervently denied those charges.

The announcement follows a week in which many actresses are coming forward to accuse Harvey Weinstein of sexual assault or harassment, resulting in a dialogue across Hollywood and the Internet about complicity, silence, and the need to, as Newman wrote, stop “professionally operating from a place of fear.”

Newman has since announced that he will be taking a break from Twitter due to receiving criticism on both sides.

Becky Scott is the editor of The Schmooze. Follow her on Twitter, @arr_scott

The Forward's independent journalism depends on donations from readers like you. Now you can double your donation! Simply donate $120 or more and your gift will be matched dollar for dollar.

Friday the 13th is a perfect excuse to turn off all the lights, lock all the doors, hide a knife under the nearest pillow (just in case!!!), and watch some of the best horror movies of the 20th century. And this year, you can use Friday the 13th as an opportunity to honor the very best Jewish horror directors by enjoying the films that will never get old — or any less scary.

Like most great horror movies, “The Shining” is based on a Stephen King novel, although many of the plot details deviate from the book. This classic taught us so many lessons: children are not to be trusted, writing is a dead end career, and violence is never the answer. I fell asleep while watching this for the first time so I can’t vouch for all 144 minutes of it but I can tell you this — the first half of it is well worth watching.

Although “The Exorcist” has been credited with introducing the “horror-fication of Catholic imagery” into the mainstream, the movie was actually masterfully directed by a Jewish man, William Friedkin. The production was famously plagued by catastrophe and many claimed the set was cursed. At the end of the day, however, that curse was probably worth it because the film is one of the highest grossing horror movies of all time. So crack a beer, sit back, and watch Linda Blair (a.k.a. Satan) crab crawl backwards down the stairs for two hours.

Here is a movie about a woman who insists that Satanists intend to sacrifice her baby when it is born, despite being called crazy by everyone around her. In the end, she is almost right. Rosemary gives birth to Satan’s baby and ends up joining a witch’s coven in order to remain with the child. Once again, this is a film about how you should absolutely under no circumstance marry an aspiring artist of any kind.

“Paranormal Activity” is one of the most profitable horror movies ever made — it also features one of the dumbest fictional couples in all of the United States. Katie and Micah, a happily married couple, decide to remain in their home despite video evidence, captured night after night after night, of a demon who is haunting the couple and feeding off of their negative energy. Unlike most people, who would pick up and move after witnessing so much as a spider attacking them in their bed in the middle of the night, this couple stays — and they pay the price. I won’t spoil it here, you’ll have to watch until the very end.

Another movie about a creepy little kid who ruins everything. This movie, unlike any of the others, has a happy ending. That doesn’t mean it won’t give you nightmares, nor does it mean it doesn’t have a scene where a scary clown attacks a little child, but it does mean that this is a good movie to watch if you are the kind of person who only enjoys films that delude people into thinking everything will be okay in the end. Steven Spielberg wasn’t technically the director but he wrote the screenplay and, rumor has it, was much more of a directorial influence than anyone wanted to admit (his contract at the time prohibited him from directing the movie because he was occupied with directing “ET” which was released within a week of “The Poltergeist”).

Happy watching!

Becky Scott is the editor of The Schmooze. Follow her on Twitter, @arr_scott